Tuesday, April 30, 2013

"Trends Journal" edited by Gerald Celente has published a
paper about New Energy that includes a part about Defkalion Green Energies .

This journal is readable only be “members” (subscribers)
therefore I will include here only pages 32-3 about DGT.

DGT wants to make a small correction: “ only at NI Week
it will be a “physical” public demonstration, at ICCFF-18 there will be a
theoretical demo.

Peter

THE SEARCH FOR AN OIL-FREE FUTURE

by Bennett Daviss

The Trends Journal • Spring 2013, pp 30-34

Part about Defkalion pp 33-34)

Nickel+hydrogen=steam

Andrea Rossi, the maverick Italian inventor of the
“E-Catalyzer” (Trends Journal, Autumn 2011), was the first to unveil a device
that reputedly derives abundant, radiation-free nuclear energy by combining
hydrogen gas with powdered nickel. Last fall, Rossi delivered yet another
version of his invention to an unnamed “military partner” for testing.

But Rossi’s former partners at Defkalion Green
Technologies aren’t waiting for more tests. They’re ready to make products.

Defkalion was formed in Greece
in 2009 to commercialize this as-yet-mysterious reaction: a combination of powdered nickel, hydrogen gas and a few proprietary
catalysts under precise combinations of pressures and temperatures that produce
heat to make steam. Rossi’s calculations indicate that as much as 20 times as
much energy,

as heat, comes out of the device than is used to run it –
far

more than a chemical reaction could generate.

Also, the reaction among the materials doesn’t produce

radiation but leaves behind copper isotopes and bits of

iron in quantities not present before the reactor was
turned

on. This indicates that the process transmutes some
elements in the reaction chamber into others, a signature of

a nuclear event. Many observers believed Rossi’s device

was poised to become the first commercial device able to

capitalize on clean or “low energy” nuclear reactions to

deliver cheap, abundant, pollution-free energy.

REVENGE OF THE QUIRKS

But Defkalion and the notoriously quirky Rossi disagreed

over both scientific and business ideas and divorced
early

in 2011. In the interim, several of Rossi’s early
supporters

have wearied of his string of unmet promises of public

demonstrations and commercial products. Now Defkalion’s
technology may overtake Rossi’s as the first venture

to market nickel-hydrogen devices, as it unveils two
inventions of its own.

Alex Xanthoulis, Defkalion’s CEO, is quick to emphasize
that the company’s products differ sharply from Rossi’s. An unnamed “major US
organization,” he says, has

compared Rossi’s and Defkalion’s devices on 14 points.

“It found only two the same – the use of hydrogen and the

use of nickel,” he says. “Otherwise, the two are
completely

different.”

There are other points of departure. Rossi’s early
devices, like the inventor himself, also were quirky. The temperatures they would reach weren’t predictable;

they produced only a few watts of excess energy; and,

when shut off, took varying lengths of time to stop
producing heat.

In contrast, Defkalion’s machines reportedly produce

heat at precise temperatures that customers require and can
be shut off within a few seconds. The devices also produce energy up to 10
kilowatt-hours, not single watts as

others have. The nickel-hydrogen fuel modules can easily
be pulled out and replaced when depleted, a task that should need to happen only every few months.

Defkalion’s first product is called “Hyperion” and will

enter the market early next year. A cube about 20 inches
on a side, it will be marketed as a heater or boiler for

homes and light industry needing up to five megawatts of

power.

The second product is a larger-scale reactor that canbe
used to drive turbines or even cars, trains, ships, space

satellites, and planes. Defkalion reports fielding
inquiries

from hundreds of companies around the world and has

chosen to partner with at least 10 large ones – including

three vehicle manufacturers, a utility company,
telecommunications firms, and a maker of aircraft – to continue research and
development. Some of the companies already are testing commercial devices using
the reactor as

a power source.

If Defkalion’s figures are right, the economic case is

compelling. The cheapest electricity is generated from

nuclear fuel at a cost of about US$.045 per
kilowatt-hour.

In contrast, Defkalion calculates that it can make
electricity for US$0.0035 cents, less than a tenth as much.

Xanthoulis notes that setting up a five-megawatt
photovoltaic array in Greece,
with 120,000 square meters of

solar panels delivering full power for about seven hours
a

day, would cost US$10 million.

Defkalion, however, maintains that its reactor, capable

of providing the same amount of energy, would be only

20 feet long, cost $1.5 million, and deliver full power
24

hours a day.

In practical terms, an ocean freighter, for example,

spends around $27,000 a day on diesel at current prices,

needs to make port for refueling, spews sooty exhaust,
and

risks polluting the seas in case of a fuel spill.
Swapping

the contents of a ship’s engine room for a Defkalion
reactor would call for four 20-foot containers and fuel costs of

about $400 a day. Refueling could be done at sea every

six months and the risk of air and ocean pollution falls

to zero.

Defkalion will conduct a public demonstration of its

reactor at the International Cold Fusion Conference
during the third week of July 2013 at the University
of Missouri in Columbia,
and another at NIWeek, the National

Instruments Conference in Austin,
Texas, to be held August 5 –
8 this year.

What the company won’t do is attempt to explain how

its devices work. Defkalion is purely a business entity,

Xanthoulis points out. While other ventures in low-energy
nuclear reactions have been led by scientists intent

on making new physics, Defkalion’s purpose is to make

products. “We don’t operate on the principle of chemical

reactions or nuclear reactions,” he says. “We operate on

the principle of Mrs. Maria.”

Mrs. Maria was a family friend who lived in the same

apartment building in Greece
as Xanthoulis. When

Greece’s
economic calamity struck, Mrs. Maria’s pension

was cut by 40 percent and she couldn’t pay for heat. The

building’s manager confided in Xanthoulis, who agreed

to pay the old woman’s heating bill and swore the manager
to silence. In the spring, Mrs. Maria told Xanthoulis

Monday, April 29, 2013

The enemy of LENR is scientific focus. Development of LENR requires good knowledge levels in a dozen fields of science and engineering to support any progress in the subject.

Science is usually done in a systematic way where one inquiry or measurement is inspired or built on a previous one.
It is a methodology where systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, leads to the support and the formulation, testing, modification and eventual perfection of a hypotheses.
Most science is evolutionary where a concept is continually examined in increasing detail and where one element is based on the next.
This approach to the acquisition of knowledge eventually shapes the thinking process of the people who make their living doing it.
In this view, scientific progress is seen primarily as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories.
The incremental scientist needs a reliable framework of concepts to frame their perception of reality. I call this scientific focus.
This type of mentality does not lend itself toward revolutionary science.
The episodic scientific model persists during periods of conceptual continuity in normal business as usual science.

For example, it is unrealistic to ask a chemist to design a car. The chemist has a focused view of his particular subject constrained by his education, his goals, his interests, and the requirements of his employment.

No one person has the time or the intellectual storage capacity to learn and understand everything that is required to design and build a complex system.
In our example, the chemist knows nothing of aerodynamics, engine development, interior design, transmission shift points, and so on.

Designing a car requires a culture of allied technologies.
Those interested in progression and advancement of LENR should understand that a culture of allied LENR technologies must be envisioned, understood, defined, and organized.

From time to time a revolutionary thinker defies the incremental scientific approach and uses “out of the box” thinking methods to define a new paradigm in knowledge.
During such revolutions in science and allied technology, the discovery of unexplained anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science.
For example, the revolutionary science of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future.
The motivation to recognize revolutionary science and technology comes when those who make their living in recognizing that this type of disruptive advancement is occasionally possible.
These systems oriented thinkers will eventually recognize that LENR is possible, useful, and most importantly… profitable.
The Rossi-types do not need to reveal their secrets. They simply have to show that LENR is possible, useful, and profitable.
When LENR gets to this take off point, the current world culture of industrial competition in technology will do the rest.

It is an excellent paper due to the well chosen applications;
however the idea per se is a relative and fragmented truth (a Pareto truth)

I want to show you my own examples, pedagogical failures and

simply harmful failures. Two recent examples:

A week ago I have launched a very emotional appeal to the
Professors who have tested Rossi’s Hot Cat. A day before yesterday I had a fine
Skype discussion with a very young and very new (in the field) LENR researcher
and I was amazed how

much is he worried by Rossi’s chaotic, unpredictable, bad behavior?
He thinks Rossi does a lot of harm to the field.

Dear Paul:
The tests have involved 15 persons between Professors and Researchers from 4
Universities and I do not know where the publication will be made. I cannot
know if between them there was also a reviewer of a scientific magazine. I have
not been told anything about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Ing.Rossi
you do not know where the publication of tests will be made by the Professors,
but i think you know when will be made.
I will try to explain better my opinion.
I think the professors have a dead line to make the publication, for example 60
days from the end of their tests.
Am I wrong?

Dear gio:
you are wrong, the Professors are totally indipendent from us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

And I have no news, because, as I said, I have
not contacts with the Third Indipendent Party’s Professors since the end of the
tests. I can only repeat that the publication of the report will be surely
published.

My appeal to the Professors has failed
miserably, I have even not received confidential information from some friend
saying he knows them but he cannot tell anything due to NDA. The most relevant
common characteristic of the professors is their total independence.
Independency from what?

This insuccess is a failure, but not only my
personal failure; Reason, Common Sense and Professionalism are in the same boat
with me.

It went almost unnoticed and uncommented
despite the fact that it contains some really challenging ideas as:

a) Cold Fusion is in such a deep trouble
because it has arrived too early when we were still missing the means and ideas
necessary for solving the problem. This justifies perfectly the failure to convert
Cold Fusion in a practical energy source and actually is great historical
compliment for our Founding Fathers. And, despite these the idea was 110%
ignored,

b) The
scientific method cannot be applied well to LENR just because a) is still valid;
a creative symbiosis of science and engineering is the condition to solve the
problems – both understanding and applications.

c) The dream and promise of Cold Fusion was
Infinite Cheap Clean Energy and the idea of a perfect theory has appeared only
later after the accumulation of many
experimental failures of a specific kind based on difficult reproduction of the
results. The losing and defeatist idea that both insiders and outsiders have
the ethical-scientific obligation to tolerate irreproducible results was
created by necessity and works against genuine problem solving.

OK, this writing had zero success. Should I
tell only pleasant things to my dear colleagues? I prefer telling what I think
it is the truth- as LENR is NOT LENR+.

I have promised to
systematically debunk pseudo-wise parables and stories of all ages, but I have
not followed the idea in part being lazy, in part being busy and eventually
being scared to offend some sacred cows. I wrote a sketch of essay showing how
unrealistic is the Parable of the Tares but I have never published it. That
parable is contrary to a vital principle in both life and profession: be
proactive!

A great failure –
apologizes?

I wrote an informative web-search newsletter
for 437 weeks (in Romanian) when I have worked at the local ISP. When I lost my
job and have started with on my Blog http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/01/info-search-no-1-438_16.html in English, using the same taxonomy.
Surprise: the Romanian variant had over 7000 subscribers; the English one was
practically ignored. Being stubborn, I have continued to compose these long
issues with 120-150 useful and interesting links each till No 500, but then I
have abandoned step-wise the publication completely.

INFORMVORE”S SUNDAY was completely forgotten
for 1.5 years at least, however starting yesterday – as my Blog’s statistics
say it has a few hundred of readers, seemingly all coming from Poland. It is an almost
miracle and I cannot explain it.

But I want to express my gratitude to these
readers. Dziękuję!

Regarding LENR, I have learned a lot from
failures, however it is the time to learn from very successful LENR+
breakthroughs and this will be my main job in the coming months.

Pons gave us a mighty dream of Energy, as Rossi
says too, however Rossi gave us a nightmare of uncertainty and confusion. He
claims to be in great hurry, but acts as somebody convinced to live for ever. A
frightening example of his behavior:

Dear Tony:
I am very sorry, but I have absolutely no more contacts with the Third
Indipendent Party Professors. The only thing I know is that the publication is
pending, but I have no information about when and where.
We all are very anxious to read it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I am unable to
swallow this message, it is an invincible challenge

to my intelligence except if the Professors are
extraterrestrials using non-human logic.

Rossi says he is not more communicating with the Professors.

They were 11 if I remember well, has he ceased to speak with
all the 11? Why does this happened? Who had the initiative of this divorce and
what was the reason, obviously a powerful one?

Let’s think: if Rossi has cut the ties, that means he was
discontented with the execution of the tests and with the results

Then Rossi believes the Hot Cat works but the Professors
were unable to demonstrate it thus disappointing the inventor.

Had the professors decided to exclude Rossi from the circle
of their friends? Suddenly, the entire Group? Why?

Actually there are 3 possibilities:

YES! the tests gave clear positive results, i.e. the
Hot Cat is as over-unity as the Sun- that’s excellent news. In this case the
professors must have the greatest respect and admiration toward Rossi, the
Great Inventor and should e very happy and to communicate with him, isn’t it?

NO! despite heroic efforts and added creativity, the
Professors were unable to find any trace of excess heat .In this case, being
given that they can publish what they want (Rossi says so) it would be their
ethical due to warn the world. OK, the Hot Cat is a new member of the feline
family and what’s true for it must not be automatically true for the 1MW e-cats!
but the warning is an ethical obligation.

MAYBE! (as the
Italians say “Forse che si, forse che no” the professors remained undecided all
of them, or they voted 6 to 5

in the favor of the incandescent E-cat or against it. I
think you agree that informing the world fast is an elementary duty of the
Professors,

I do not exclude other possibilities as this message was
written by Rossi during celebrating something formidable in the company of all
those mysterious Professors at the Nobu Miami Beach restaurant with a Mississippi
of Veuve Cliquot champagne.

However, if we take Rossi seriously, then the image of the
professors is that of a bunch of self-appointed scientists, slow thinking, illogically
acting, barely able to write a scientific report

who do not know how to tell yes, no or maybe with a less
then 200 words abstract.

Therefore, I think we all –those interested in LENR should sign
this And it is sure somebody from our Group knows personally at least one of
the Professors. They must be on the Web.

APPEAL TO THE PROFESSORS who have performed the Third
Party Test of Andrea Rossi’s HOT CAT.

Dear Professors,

In case you are real persons, genuine scientists, serious
professionals, dedicated to Truth; In case you have indeed made those tests, please
publish and disseminate on Web ASAP the essence of the result, positive,
negative or killer-neutral. For the sake of your prestige- publish, please!

Sunday, April 14, 2013

In 2013, the seriousness quotient
of the discussions regarding LENR tends to sharply increase. If this trend
continues, there are good
chances for the discussions to become much more realistic too.
An example: at this forum:

This is fundamental research,
not engineering. Peter (Gluck) should understand that. (Jed Rothwell)

I cannot agree with Jed, first of
all because he and Doug and I are referring to different things. We are
speaking about the enhanced systems on their way to commercial applications
while Jed is probably considering the entire field, broadly defined and
undivided but cognitively dominated by the classic Fleischmann-Pons
electrolysis cell.

Second: as repeatedly told, LENR+
is a result of a creative form of the science-engineering symbiosis.

Fundamental
research? What else can we learn about Mother Nature from the LENR research
that (mildly put) She is a cruel and tetchy Stepmother? (I am both polite and
feminist here- those who confronted the reproducibility problem can guess exactly
what I wanted to say.)

The second

Fleischmann and Pons have not
promised: “I will
show you great things and difficult which you don’t know” No, they were very
specific about ENERGY, a significant new source. Not a word about discovery of some
deep secrets of Mme Nature, Cold fusion has started as applicative science and
only after the accumulation of a sufficient quantity of failures it was
converted in fundamental science to help it survive. And palladium has a
special relationship with the isotopes of hydrogen thus creating endless
possibilities for myriads of very interesting studies that can be classified as
fundamental.

The third

The real Cold Fusion story: reality has imitated but also has messed
up Christian Andersen’s fairy tale: a scientific ugly duckling is unable to
grow up and become a beautiful technological swan even after 24 years!

But we can say much more. Victor
Hugo has revealed us that: “Nothing is as powerful as anideawhosetimehas
come.” The reverse is also true; an idea that arrives before its time is weak
and has to wait patiently in obscurity. I think this can explain the tortuous
history of the LENR field. In the very spirit of the initial F&P
announcement the time of Cold Fusion will arrive when it will be able become a
significant energy source. Not earlier!

The mother of all errors in LENR

I dare to say that an erroneous
implicit, axiomaticpresumption was made
and has persisted: everybody was firmly convinced that the scientific method
CAN be applied for cold fusion- at the time of its discovery, but now this
seems to not be justified. CF came before its time. It is too complex, too new,
to unexpected, too messy, too multifaceted, too dynamic, too non-linear and too
weird to be really understood and controlled at the time of its discovery.

The problem was with Cold Fusion per-se not with the science
or the scientific method that are developing continuously but have their limits
and constrains at a given time.

I remember that the morphology and morphogenesis of PVC
(my Thesis) could be understood well only when scanning electron microscopy
became available.

Cold Fusion-in order to be made reliable and useful needs
advanced nanotechnology, high-tech materials science, hyper-active forms of
hydrogen, resonances, plasmonics and probably other novelties inexistent in
1989. Without the new knowledge and improved tools the chances of success were
small.

Even today classic
LENR has more ambitions than genuine achievements in “serious” fundamental
research. Incomplete and inadequate models and partial theories cannot lead to
reliable good results.

Painful questions

In retrospective it is easy to put “smart” questions; I
apologize, but here there are:

Why “we” have remained so many years so focused on the
FP Cell despite failures in understanding and control?

Why the FP Cell was considered as kind of final solution
and not an intermediate stage toward a greater, better something?

Why is this cell still mesmerizing so many of our best
researchers when it was early discovered that it is something very fishy with
it?

A part of the standard answer is that we know so much about
palladium. It is huge literature about this; coming from an institute (http://www.itim-cj.ro/) where it was a fine
group specialized in Pd, lead by a reputed expert, Dr, R V Bucur I have

a correct image of the subject. Many years, one of my
favorite journals was http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/ Unfortunately, it seems Pd is missing just the
essential energy generating virtues. One of the possible causes is that Pd’s
attraction to deuterium is so “promiscuous”- both at the surface where it is OK
and deep in the bulk that competes with the active surface. The very high D/Pd
story.

A tragic view of the reproducibility problem in LENR

The heat effect is a
certainty, however unfortunately a low quality certainty due the stunning,
disturbing, endlessly annoying low reproducibility of the heat release- an
over-discussed subject. This trouble calls for a decision, how much
non-reproducibility can be tolerated? If we see that this problem is wicked,
stubborn, practically cannot be solved, what should we do? How long can we
tolerate this situation? This is an issue of professional education and the
majority has the right to decide- it is about funds, effort, resources, waste.
I am coming from an area with very low tolerance to risks= chemical industry. I
cannot accept this reproducibility disaster but I have not lost my techno-faith
in LENR. I tried to find a logical
cause of this and despite the fact that I am right; I will roll in my grave for
long time till my poisoning hypothesis will be thoroughly tested.

An incipient guess –
the slow progress of the MFMP can be due to the de-activation of the Celani
wires by some form of poisoning?!)

Continuing with nasty questions:

Are people who cannot accept lack of
reproducibility, skeptics?

Bad unjust oppressive people? Enemies of the progress?

With allusion to the Hagelstein editorial:

In retrospective, do some similarities exist between
Piantelli and an in-community Semmelweis?If in 1994 it had been
a mass exodus from the Pd-D to the Ni-H system, then the evolution of LENR
could had been entirely different, more positive? (Futile question)

Inspired by the conclusions of the Hagelstein editorial

The author says: “excess heat
in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment is a real effect” True, but somehow the
usability of the effect has to be built, at a multi-watt scale.

“There are big implications for science, and for society.”
The implications for science will be
great when the system will be clearly understood and those for society will appear
via applications, society want value not truth.

Without resources science in this area will not advance. True! But the most necessary, critical resource is ideas-
new, creative,radical, paradigm changing. Not money. This is true
for many other cases today, see please this book:

With the continued destruction of the careers of those
who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be no
continuity of effort. Sooner than you think, the new area
of the field, LENR+ will enter a phase of epidemic development and many jobs
will be created first of all in LENR+ development.

The relationship between “fundamental” LENR and
applicative LENR+

Defkalion has chosen the friendly way and collaborates
with classic LENR scientists, strategically this is good.

Rossi on the contrary said things like:

a- his Ni-H system has nothing to do
with Piantelli's Ni-H system;

b- the can not learn much useful for his
technology from the entire LENR field\

c- the true LENR specialists are not those who
we have learned

to think;

d- Fleischmann's great merit is that he has
given us a dream not the idea or science per se; (Rossi, at his turn has given
us nightmare of uncertainty and waiting)

Rossi is paradoxical, he has made the great
LENR discovery and this is derived not from the FP Cell but from heterogeneous
catalysis, being a special case of support metal interaction (as I have
suggested in my Topology paper in 1992).

If you take care to nuances you will remember
that Defkalion’s CTO who has, taken LENR seriously first after his meeting with
Rossi, has confessed that he has studied the lenr -canr literature first of all
to know what to NOT do. And he has decided to build an original technology. He
knew that while the “love” between Pd and D is too intense, the love between Ni
and H is more moderate and there is always a risk of platonic love, ergo the
use of strong love potions and rites is compulsory.

The ideological and praxeological split
between the LENR and LENR+ camps is greater than we usually think. Simply told,
they think differently, act differently, and have completely different aims.
Time will change this, I bet. LENR+ will prevail.

It’s time to finish this paper

Peter Hagelstein speaks about science by vote
and scientific method including consensus-in his great editorial. Obviously
these are against the very nature of science as PH shows it.

But suppose my ideas presented here will be
judged democratically, I hope to receive at least 2% of the votes.

During the ’70-ties when I was head of research
at OLTCHIM (

a great unit of the Romanian petrochemical
industry- just now in course of assassination by the dark forces of capitalism=
see News!) I have intensely practicised post-logical thinking. That is, I took
the majority of the decisions re. the directions in our research and
development activity. An angry co-worker wrote once on the blackboard in my
office: “Gluck ha sempre ragione.” comparing me with the ill-fated
Italian dictator. I have not contradicted him.

And will not do it now, because, yes, LENR+ is
not like LENR classic.

A popularity index of 2% is oxymoronic; and I
have not much time left. Fortunately history has, plenty of it.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

The mind of man is a dark and
murky place. Its mysteries have been ever advancing for over ten million years
of evolution; with one more complex layer piled on the top of a more primitive
one, from the most basic and animalistic to the most human and altruistic, as
humanity struggled to overcome its animal nature shaped by the wilderness of
our origins to the exalted pinnacles of civilization where we aspire to be.

In the immutable ways of evolution, through the long march of time over
the endless eons, none of the old mechanisms of the mind have ever been
replaced; with the more primitive layers being suppressed by evolution and
supplanted by the more modern machinery of thinking.

The bottom line, we cannot fight our human nature; we can only learn to
live with it, to follow it dictates and guidelines in bending it to follow our
will.

A strategy for problem solving that is not consistent with our nature is
destined to be ineffective as a tool in meeting its ultimate goals.

In the quest to understand ourselves, just how do our minds work: the
conscious, subconscious, and unconscious? And what is the difference between
them?

The concept of three levels of mind has been around for some time now.
Sigmund Freud, the famous Austrian psychologist was probably the first to study
the dichotomy of mind and popularized that study into mainstream society as we
know it today.

Freud has bequeathed to us a useful model of the mind, which he
separated into three tiers or sections – the conscious mind or ego, the preconscious,
and the unconscious mind.

One way to illustrate the concept of the three minds is by using a
triangle. If you imagine at the very tip of the triangle is your conscious
mind. It occupies only a small portion of space at the top, a bit like an iceberg
where only a fraction of it is showing above the water. It probably represents
about 10% of your brain capacity. This mental capability is newly developed and
untried in the march of our evolution where communication of our thoughts and
feelings requires some organization and logic to be transferred onward to
others.

Below this is a slightly larger section that Freud called the
preconscious, or what some refer to as the subconscious. It is much larger than
the conscious mind and accounts for around 50-60% of our brain capabilities.
This mental process kept our ancestors alive in their fight to struggle out of
the wilds of our first habitats and is usually devoid of logic and science but
the preserve of intuition and feeling.

The section below this middle layer is the unconscious mind. It is the
mind of the primitive and occupies the whole width of the base of the triangle
and fills out the other 30-40% of the triangle. It is vast and deep and largely
inaccessible to conscious thought, a bit like the dark depths of the ocean were
the basest emotions live.

Our conscious mind is what most people associate with who we are,
because that is where most people live day to day. It is the thin veneer of our
being. It is the outer edifice of our existence where we expose ourselves to
the world. But it’s by no means where
all the action takes place.

Our conscious mind is a bit like the captain of a ship standing on the
bridge giving out orders to the crew. In reality, it’s the crew in the engine
room below deck (the subconscious and the deeper unconscious) that carry out
the orders. The captain may be in charge of the ship and give the orders but
it’s the crew that actually guides the ship that does the dirty work, all
according to what training they had been given over the years to best do so.

Our conscious mind communicates to the outside world and the inner self
through speech, pictures, writing, physical movement, and thought.

On the other hand, the subconscious mind is in charge of our recent
memories, and is in continuous contact with the resources of the unconscious
mind.

The unconscious mind is the storehouse of all memories and past
experiences, both those that have been repressed through trauma and those that
have simply been forgotten as no longer important to us. It’s from these
memories and experiences that our beliefs, habits, and behaviors are formed.

The unconscious constantly drives the conscious mind via our
subconscious, and is what provides us with the direction and meaning to all our
interactions with the world, as filtered through our beliefs and habits. It
communicates through, insight, feelings, emotions, imagination, mood,
sensations, and dreams.

The unconscious deals with all the same tasks as the subconscious – the
memory, habits, feelings, emotions, and behaviors. The difference between the
two minds, however, is that the unconscious is the source of all these programs
that our subconscious uses and the energy that drives us.

It is the place where all our memories and experiences since birth have
been stored. It’s from these memories that our beliefs, habits, and behaviors
are formed and reinforced over time.

The unconscious mind is where our optimism is born and the kind of hope
that just ignores the enormity of the tasks that face us or the road blocks
that stand in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows
us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight. It is the unreason of
stubbornness, the thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the
contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to
keep on thinking, to keep on hoping, to keep on reaching, to keep on working,
and to keep on fighting.

It is the drive rooted in the unconscious instinct for survival that has
gotten us to where we are now over the countless generations in an endless
cycle of birth and death.

It is where purpose if found. It is this purpose that guides up, this
purpose that connects us, this purpose that pulls us, this purpose that drives
us, and it is this purpose that binds us.

It is where these mystic chords of our passion lie that swell when
touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our natures. It will
not allow us to shrink from these great missions of our lives and the root of
the emotions that life engenders.

It is the part of us that says unto the latest generation that when we
are tested we refused to let this great journey of survival end, that we did
not turn back nor will we falter to pass the gift of life forward; and with
unreasoned eyes fixed on the horizon, we are compelled ever onward to carry
forth, restore and maintain that great gift that cannot be squandered and must
be delivered safely to future generations.

Our subconscious is dominated by our conscious mind. Controlling and
directing it is the key to personal change. This control is like programing an
internal computer.

Our subconscious is a bit like the RAM in our computer; the short term
working memory in our computer and its job is to hold the programs and data
that are currently in use so they can be reached quickly and easily by the
computer processor. It’s a lot faster than the other types of memory, such as
the hard disk or CD-ROM available on the conscious level. The quality of these
memories and programs determines how successful the conscious level will be.

Apart from short term memory, the subconscious also plays an important
role in our day to day functioning.

It works hard at ensuring you have everything you need for quick recall
and access to when you need it. Things like –

Memories – such as what your telephone number is, how to drive a car
without having to consciously think about it, what you need to get from the
shop on the way home etc.

Current programs you run daily, such as behaviors, habits, and mood.

Filters (such as beliefs and values) to run information through to test
their validity according to your perception of the world.

Sensations taken in via your 5 senses and what it means to you.

If it doesn’t happen to have a filter or reference point in its RAM for
some bits of information that come in, then it has a direct line to the storage
place of the mind – the unconscious. It will ask the unconscious to pull out
the programs that it best associates with the incoming data to help make sense
of it all.

The subconscious is also constantly at work, staying a lot more aware of
your surroundings than you realize. In fact, according to the NLP communication
model we are assaulted with over 2 million bits of data every second. If our
conscious mind had to deal with all that you would very quickly become
overwhelmed and not be able to get anything done. The conscious selects from
the vast storehouse of data and functions to get a job done.

Instead, our subconscious filters out all the unnecessary information
and delivers only that which is needed at the time, around 7 chunks of
information. It does all this behind the scenes so you can perform our daily
work uninhibited. And it does this as logically as it can; based on the
programs it has access to in your unconscious.

The subconscious is where most problems are solved. These solutions
flash into the conscious mind in a flash of inspiration, logic of the conscious
follows the intuition of the subconscious.

It then communicates all the results into consciousness via emotions,
feelings, sensations and reflexes, images and dreams. It doesn’t communicate in
words, it flashes insights that we feel come out of nowhere to help us solve
the problems of the conscious. This communication between these mental layers
is where hunches, premonitions, instincts, and guesses are born.

One of the truly great things about the subconscious (and one which we
need to take advantage of to affect change) is … it obeys orders; the
subconscious can be educated!

People often erroneously think that the subconscious is in charge and we
are merely at its mercy. In fact it’s the complete opposite. Your conscious
mind gives it the direction, the environment if you like, for which it operates
in. The subconscious will only deliver the emotions and feelings of what you
continuously think about.

Now I’m not saying it’s as easy as changing what you think of in one
moment and your entire life will be changed. In most cases your default
programs have too much energy attached to them to change instantaneously.
Training the subconscious take both great effort and discomfort. It can be done
though – such as after a massive life altering event or if enough pain is
associated with the old behavior – but without a major shift like that it is
likely the old programs will reemerge.

As an example of how the subconscious mind works, let us look at one of
the greatest minds to have ever lived to see what formed it and what made it
tick.

Leonardo DaVinci was a great painter, designer, scientist, futurist and
thinker. He also had the gift of dyslexia.

One remarkable indication that Leonardo was dyslexic is in his
handwriting. Leonardo was constantly sketching out his ideas for inventions.
Most of the time, he wrote his notes backwards. Why did Leonardo write from
right-to-left, in mirror image? Although unusual, this is a trait shared by
many left-handed dyslexic people. Most of the time, dyslexic writers are not
even consciously aware that they are writing this way.

Leonardo's spelling is also considered erratic and quite strange. He
also started many more projects then he ever finished - a characteristic now
often considered to be 'A.D.D.'

The way the world entered DaVinci’s mind forced his subconscious
programs to compensate. How this process worked is not known but his genius was
not developed on the conscious level. It was a miracle of adaptation.

To make sense of the world, the dyslexic sorely needs to order the
confused signals that enter through their senses.

From the earliest age, the dyslectic forms programs and compulsions to
impose a synthesis of the product of their senses.

This synthesis is achieved by registering through memorizing all the
relevant data involved in a subject, correlating it using inbuilt subconscious
programs perfected from birth as a coping mechanism for dyslexia so that no
contradictions exist between the input data. When this synthesis is reached,
the unconscious responds with a feeling of beauty that reinforces the synthesis
behavior.

Dyslexia requires the achievement of order, precision, and harmony in
the unconscious mind as a coping mechanism for the imprecision and confusion
inherent in the senses of the dyslectic. This compensation mechanism results in
unique mental mechanisms and talents to form.

Dyslexia Areas of Strength:

•Computer programming

•Art- especially 3-D expression and visualization

•Music

•Science

•Law

•Highly intuitive

•Mechanical skills

•Inquisitive and Imaginative

•Creative and Innovative

•Global thinkers-"think out-side of the box"

•Problem solvers-good at seeing the big picture

•Strong verbal communicators

As an example, of the Dyslexic method, here is how an affected software
person would write a tax preparation program.

First memorize all the rules of all the application programming
interfaces (API) and the functions of the operating system that will be needed
to write the program. These APIs are all committed in detail to the
subconscious usually through long experience.

Completely learn all the rules that govern the tax structure to be
programed.

Formulate a user experience that best suits the needs of the users of
the program.

Inside the head of the dyslectic, a subconscious program works 24/7 to
correlate all the associated factors to form a synthesis of form and function. Based
on his level of unconscious compulsion to achieve order, the programmer may
well dream about the program constantly.

When completed and such a program is examined and evaluated by others
skilled in the art, it is considered beautiful in it execution in terms of the
level of synthesis and innovation that it achieves.

On the other hand, the opposite of this is termed in the software
industry as spaghetti code which is twisted and tangled; Spaghetti code occurs
when items are added in disjointed layers without any correlation, ordering,
and harmony. It is a nightmare to add to it or maintain this type of program.

In another example, in what is known as DaVinci’s masterpiece in light
and perspective, The Last Supper, da Vinci applies his novel, though more
complicated understanding of light and optics, translating his scientific
inquiry into artistic innovation.

First Leonardo da Vinci’s studied perspective and mastered it. His use
of light and optics in painting over long years of practice were it became
second nature and was committedentirely into his subconscious.

This subconscious programming ultimately allowed him to excel in the
portrayal of reflection, shadow, and luminescence. Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper
demonstrates this careful study of light and the relation of light to
perspective. In the work, da Vinci
delves into the true complications of optics and reflections, and its renown
guided the artistic study of light by subsequent masters.

From da Vinci’s personal manuscripts, accounts from his contemporaries,
and present-day art historians, the iterative relationship between Leonardo da
Vinci’s study of light and study of optics becomes apparent, and how his study
of the two fields manifested in his paintings.

What gives this painting it unparalleled eternal beauty is the mastery
and synthesis of the artistic techniques used to confer the unified and
coherent message of the artist.

Albert Einstein was
another famous Dyslexic.

The mechanism of Dyslexic subconscious production of insight is
illustrated by the Albert Einstein Eureka moment at the Bern Patent office. The
truth that was long apparent on the subconscious level eventually flashed into
his conscience mind.

Albert Einstein was
sitting in his chair at the Patent Office in Bern one day when the breakthrough
happened. "Suddenly, the thought struck me: if a man falls freely, he does
not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made
a deep impression on me," he wrote in 1907. This was two years after the
publication of his Special Theory of Relativity and it led directly to his
theory of gravity, and still later to his General Theory of Relativity. In
effect, Einstein had stumbled upon one of his greatest insights: gravity is
acceleration.

Einsteinknew
about and utilized his subconsciousabilities to solve difficult problems. Using
a sudden flash of insight method, one of the key insights in developing his
special theory of relativity came to Albert Einstein while talking to his friend Michele Besso:

I started the conversation with
him in the following way: "Recently I have been working on a difficult
problem, today I come here to do battle against that problem with you"
We discussed every aspect of this problem. Then suddenly I understood where
the key to this problem lay. Next day I came back to him again and said to
him without even saying hello, "thank you. I've completely solved the
problem"

Functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalogram studies
have found that problem solving requiring insight involves increased activity
in the deep primitive brain at the right cerebral hemisphere as compared with
problem solving not requiring insight. In particular, increased activity was
found in the right hemisphere anterior superior temporal gyrus.

Subconscious processing may take place while a person is asleep, and
there are several cases of scientific discoveries coming to people in their
dreams. Friedrich August Kekulé von Stradonitz said that the ring structure of
benzene came to him in a dream where a snake was eating its own tail. Studies
have shown increased performance at insight problems if the subjects slept
during a break between receiving the problem and solving it. Sleep may function
to restructure problems formulated in the subconscious, and allow new insights
to be reached. Henri Poincaré stated that he valued sleep as a time for
"unconscious thought" that helped him break through problems.

A kitchen design or a pluming job can be just as beautiful as a work by Leonardo
DaVinci if they achieve a synthesis of form and function.

Everyone has their own talents and abilities that have been formed by
their nature and nurture. We must identify who can best do the job needed to be
done and let them do it.

The shaping the subconscious mind entails a lifetime of effort,
discipline, experience, and practice.

Let Einstein understand the universe, Michelangelo build St. Peters cathedral, and
William Shakespeare write the plays.